The Judge's Deliberation
In the Matter of Choplin v. Rogers: Notes from the Bench
The Weight of Evidence
I've reviewed thousands of custody cases in my years on the bench. Most come down to one question: which arrangement serves the best interest of the child?
The parties in this case have presented me with something I don't often get — a complete text message record spanning six years. 5,118 messages. Every request, every response, every silence. In most custody cases, I'm working from competing narratives. Here, I have the actual record.
The Father's Pattern
Mr. Choplin's communication pattern is remarkably consistent across the entire six-year period. He asks about his daughter's health. He asks about school. He asks about activities. He responds to messages promptly. He accommodates schedule changes. He asks to talk to his daughter.
This is not a father who shows up in my courtroom claiming involvement he never demonstrated. The record documents his involvement — day by day, message by message, for six years.
The Mother's Pattern
Ms. Rogers' pattern tells a different story, and it tells it in phases.
In 2020-2021, she is a cooperative co-parent. Responsive, flexible, communicative. This matters — it means the capacity exists. She has demonstrated she can co-parent effectively.
Beginning in 2022, her responsiveness declines markedly. Messages go unanswered. Substantive questions receive minimal responses. Requests for the father to communicate with his daughter are routinely ignored.
By 2025, the communication pattern has shifted so dramatically that the father himself asks: "Is this Melanie I'm texting with?"
The Communication Evidence
The Gatekeeping Finding
When a parent requests to speak with their child and that request is routinely denied or ignored, the court has a word for it: gatekeeping.
Mr. Choplin's requests are well-documented. They are polite, direct, and frequent. The responses — or lack thereof — are equally documented. This is one of the clearest gatekeeping records I've seen, because it's not filtered through memory or competing accounts. It's timestamped.
The "your time is your time" defense is applied selectively — invoked when Mr. Choplin requests contact, but not when Ms. Rogers needs accommodation. The selective enforcement is itself evidence of control rather than genuine co-parenting philosophy.
Third-Party Authorship
For five years, Ms. Rogers writes one way — casual, brief, informal. Then, suddenly, in 2025, a subset of her messages reads like legal documentation.
I note:
- The style shift is dramatic and sudden
- It coincides with the period of highest conflict
- It is consistent with a law enforcement writing style
- The father noticed and documented his concern in real time
If a third party is authoring a parent's co-parenting communications, it undermines the court's ability to evaluate the parent's own judgment, intentions, and capacity. The court makes custody determinations based on the parents — not their partners.
The Self-Harm Issue
I note with significant concern the May 19, 2022 text in which Mr. Choplin states his daughter was self-harming and expressing suicidal ideation. Ms. Rogers did not dispute this in the text record.
Whether this allegation is substantiated is a matter for professional evaluation. But the fact that it was raised, not denied, and not followed up with any coordinated parental response visible in the text record is concerning.
False Claims and Credibility
The record contains several instances where statements made by Ms. Rogers in 2025-2026 are contradicted by the historical record:
- Claims of "never discussed" medical issues that were raised
- Claims of "no missed calls" during an emergency
- Claims of not knowing about activities the record suggests she was aware of
In court, credibility matters. When a witness makes claims that the documentary evidence contradicts, the court adjusts its assessment of that witness's reliability accordingly.
My Assessment
The text record tells a story I see too often: a father systematically marginalized from his daughter's life.
What makes this case different is the thoroughness of the documentation. Mr. Choplin didn't just tell me he tried. He showed me — 5,118 messages of trying.
The best interest of the child is served by maintaining a strong, unimpeded relationship with both parents. The record shows one parent consistently working toward that goal and one parent consistently working against it.
What the Court Actually Ruled
On November 20, 2024, the court ruled in Jason's favor.
Hearing Officer Vanessa D. Randall, after hearing sworn testimony from both parents and reviewing counselor reports, made the following findings and recommendations:
- Jason Choplin designated as domiciliary parent with authority over all major decisions
- Alternating weekly custody continues, but Adele stays with Jason during Melanie's work days
- Melanie ordered to enroll in the Best Moms Program by December 1, 2024
- The minor child has expressed a preference to reside with her father
The Hearing Officer noted: "Adele has consistently expressed to both of her counselors her desire to reside with her father."
Subsequent Court Actions:
- December 4, 2024: Temporary Judgment issued. Jason is domiciliary parent.
- March 19, 2025: Court orders mini custody evaluation by Dr. Valerie Dugas.
- June 5, 2025: Temporary Judgment extended to December 4, 2025 because custody evaluation is not complete.